Discussion Forums

PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 6/24/2009 7:16 AM by  Binokular
Philosophical question (inspired by Metallica tribute band)
 6 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
John Doe
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:338


--
6/23/2009 6:24 AM

    My loving girlfriend decided to treat me to a weekend away in Cork to celebrate my birthday. On Friday night we went to see Jinx Lennon - mad Dundalk guy who sings brilliant songs about the assorted nut jobs roaming the streets of Dundalk. Reminds me a lot of Mark E Smith.

     


    On Saturday night we went to see, of all things, a Metallica tribute band. Surreal but hugely enjoyable. I'm pleased to be able to report that despite my advancing years, I can still mosh.  Sad but true.

     


    And now a question of philosophy. Trees falling unheard in forests etc. is all very well, but here's a riddle for the Cluas collective.

     


    Metallica once recorded a cover of Whiskey in the Jar and frequently perform it live.

     


    So here's the question.

     


    If a Metallica tribute band play Whiskey in the Jar....are they covering Metallica or Thin Lizzy ?????? (I'm not forgetting that Whiskey in the Jar is a trad. arr. song and not a Lizzy original.)

     


    Let's see you ponder that one, o wise denizens of Cluas.    

     

    host
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:45


    --
    6/23/2009 6:42 AM
    Frankly I think the lads in the tribute band play mandolins and fiddles when they're back in their gaffs and were therefore channeling The Dubliners, who brought it to the attention of Thin Lizzy.
    floodzer
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:181


    --
    6/23/2009 7:00 AM
    I covered the 'tallica' version with the band on numerous occasions from the time it was released ('98 - Aged 14) for 2 or 3 of years. It was a handy number for the end of a set. I considered it a Metallica cover but everyone who touched it over the years has had a hand in creating that version. It feels like a rock tune but its spirit remains traditional if ya dig??
    aidan
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:638


    --
    6/23/2009 7:09 AM

    If they were acting like fops and wiggling their arses at Michael Jackson, then they were covering Jarvis's version.

    Idiot Kid
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:217


    --
    6/24/2009 1:44 AM

    I suppose it becomes more an interpretation than a cover doesn't it? Although, thinking about it, seeing as they were a Metallica tribute band, it was must be a Metallica cover, no? Maybe it's one of those songs, like Hallelujah, that each person who covers it adds something different to the original (both different good and different bad).

    PeterQuaife
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:436


    --
    6/24/2009 5:55 AM
    Thin Lizzy I'd say as they originally (maybe not) rockified the mutha. Have never heard the Metallica version, do they do the intro lead akin to the Thin Lizzy version? Moshing, happy days. Caught Therapy? a few weeks ago , sober moshing. PQ
    Binokular
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1665


    --
    6/24/2009 7:16 AM
    Posted By Idiot Kid on 24 Jun 2009 01:44 AM

    I suppose it becomes more an interpretation than a cover doesn't it? Although, thinking about it, seeing as they were a Metallica tribute band, it was must be a Metallica cover, no? Maybe it's one of those songs, like Hallelujah, that each person who covers it adds something different to the original (both different good and different bad).



    All songs are covers (or interpretations) of the original (which in this case would be a folk tune) regardless of whether the person covering realises it or not. It actually sort of irks me that people refer to it as "Jeff Buckleys Hallelujah" these days. Stupid I know, but it does. It's a spine tingling vocal performance, but in hindsight it's actually a terrible version in some ways. His ecstatic delivery is totally out of context with the lyrical content of the song, which is the downbeat defeated tone of the guilt-ridden. The David referred to in the song is the biblical King David and it's essentially a narrative of him commiting adultery with the wife of his army chief, whom he later plotted to have killed and then felt terrible guilt about the whole thing, it obviously has another level above that basic narrative, but Buckleys version is too uplifting. John Cales version is probably the best reflection of the emotional tone of the lyrics. Then again, maybe I'm interpreting it wrong... ;)
    You are not authorized to post a reply.